Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

Due Diligence on Specific Plan Amendment

From: domainremoved <George>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:50:32 -0700

The Illustrative Plan in the Specific Plan, included a 300 room hotel on
the Stanford property, and this Illustrative Plan (Specific Plan, page A3)
was the express basis used for analysis of the Specific Plan EIR, both
draft and final (page 3-11), the Transportation Impact analysis of April 2,
2010, (pages ii, Table ES-1, page 37), the Specific Plan Fiscal Impact
Analysis (FIA) amended August 31, 2011 (p. 4,5). The EIR stated it was the
“development that is the most reasonably foreseeable” based upon various
factors including the Specific Plan Guiding Principles.

On November 7, 2012, less than four months after adaption of the Specific
Plan in July, Stanford filed an application with the planning department,
including a complete set of plans for a development with no hotel, and
other than the token required 10,000 square feet of retail, no non
residential development other than office space for over 200,000 square
feet. The Specific Plan was adapted after years of study and more than two
years after the Transportation Impact analysis.

What due diligence or reasonable disclosure did the following do at any
time to protect the residents of Menlo Park with respect anticipated
traffic or other impacts and loss of anticipated revenues, or from a
Stanford all non-residential space office space, no hotel development
proposed almost immediately after adoption of their Specific Plan.

I. Menlo Park Staff or City Council

a. What due diligence investigation, if any, did staff or Council do
with respect to Stanford’s intended development on its property?

b. What due diligence, if any, did Staff or Council do to seek a
commitment from Stanford for a hotel on its property?

c. What due diligence investigation, if any, did staff or council do
with respect to Menlo Park’s Consultant’s conflict of interest in seeking
entitlements on 35 acres in Redwood city for Stanford and how that conflict
might relate to Stanford’s intended development on its 8 acres in Palo

d. What if any due diligence investigation was made with respect to
Stanford’s intended use of its property, specifically including, but not
limited to a hotel?

e. What due diligence if any was done asking of Stanford about its
intended development on its site, at any time, including Stanford’s
requests for removals of bike lanes, removals of public access at the
Cambridge extension, and other requests, including any requests by anyone
for car access adjacent to bike route and plaza on Middle Extension, all of
which were approved by Staff or council?

f. If Stanford’s current position is Caveat Emptor, what
responsibility does Council have to residents, property owners and tax
payers for failure to adequately protect them from failures of Specific
Plan process and lack of due diligence. Is Council responsible for Caveat
Emptor in this situation and why weren’t residents, taxpayers and property
owners protected?

II. Consultant

a. What did it know about Stanford’s intended development in Menlo Park
at any time, either in its role as consultant to Menlo Park, or as
entitlement agent for Stanford in Redwood City, and what disclosure if any
did it make to Menlo Park?

b. What participation did it have with Stanford about any of the
Stanford requests for design changes benefitting Stanford Property made by

III. City Council Keith-Carlton sub committee and City Council
one year specific Plan review process:

a. What due diligence was done on the above questions, specifically
with regard to the brief four-month period between acceptance of the
Specific Plan in July 2012 and Stanford’s submittal of development plans
and drawings in connection with Stanford application.

b. What due diligence investigation was done on such a complete change
within such a short time?

c. What internal due diligence investigation was made of staff on what
knowledge it had about Stanford proposed development?

d. What internal due diligence, if any, was done on the difference
between the EIR and FIA basis of study and the Stanford Application?

e. What due diligence, if any, did Staff or Council do to seek a
commitment from Stanford for a hotel on its property?

IV. Stanford (member of both Specific Plan and Vision oversight
committees, and proponent of specific plan design changes benefitting its
property, and primary beneficiary of Specific Plan benefits)

a. When was any intent not to develop a hotel on its property formed
and what disclosure, if any, was made?

b. Was there ever any consideration made of a hotel on its site, and if
so what were the results of that consideration?

c. If no consideration was ever given to a hotel on its site, and
knowing the basis of study of the EIR and Fiscal plan, and as a member of
the Specific Plan oversight committee, why was no disclosure made?

d. When in relationship to application on November 7, 2012 was an
intent formed to seek development on its site without any hotel?

e. What disclosures, if any, were made to City Council, Staff or
Consultant with respect to development on Stanford property?

V. Local Press

a. What investigation or due diligence did any of them or their
representatives pursue regarding the above obvious questions?

Thanks, George

George C. Fisher
​1121 Cotton Street
​Menlo Park, Ca​
(650) 799 5480
Fax (650) 475 1849
Received on Wed Oct 29 2014 - 15:45:58 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)